- Email: [email protected]
In vitro ex cathedra
See newscientist.com for letters on: ● Reason, to be cheerful ● Advertising ethics
University study that Marx cited did not find that “men who are circumcised when they are already HIV-positive are more likely to infect their partners”. There was no statistically significant difference in HIV transmission, though couples who resumed sex before wound healing had more HIV infections six months after surgery. We predict that circumcision will one day be accepted as vaccination is now. We also realise that there is still resistance. The remaining critics within the medical community employ arguments contradicted by the bulk of research. Then there is the anticircumcision movement, whose emotive, unscientific propaganda on this issue is legend. This is frustrating for international health agencies and experts trying to communicate sound, evidence-based public health messages. The World Health Organization estimates that scaling up circumcision could prevent some 3 million AIDS deaths in Africa over the next 20 years. More extensive scientific appraisals can be found at http:// go.worldbank.org/XWKGJDCZG0 and www.circinfo.net From James Badger It was flattering to see my modest study mentioned. But I am not a “circumcision advocate” as Vivien Marx suggests. I see the medical benefits of circumcision as indisputable, but I also acknowledge that it involves modifying the body for what is only a potential benefit, so I understand the cultural and philosophical reasons why some parents choose against it. Marx also failed to mention that my survey of 185 men and women was a piece of journalism for a magazine, not a peerreviewed paper. It also found that circumcised men had intercourse more frequently, and that the female partners of circumcised men were more likely to reach orgasm. These are relevant issues, www.newscientist.com
and it would be good if a more substantial study were funded. Rozelle, New South Wales, Australia
remains double that for traditional pregnancy, even if he did accept scientists’ right to be “demonstrating God’s good side”. It remains, however, a more hopeful approach than appealing to modernity and citing precedents in other faiths. While the church believes IVF is wrong, it will oppose it no matter who, which or how many disagree. Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, UK
Green milk
Transsexual terms From Oliver Franks Your report on a gene variant associated with transsexuality called female-to-male transsexuals “transsexual women” and vice versa (2 August, p 14). This perpetuates the myth that a transsexual person is a member of their assigned sex with a mental problem, rather than a member of the sex they identify with who happens to have a physical problem. Every reference to transsexual people with the wrong gender contributes to public doubt in their sanity – and thus doubt in anything they say and do. York, UK
From David Weldon Chris Collins asks about the possibility of a “milk machine” (2 August, p 23). My father, Frank Weldon, for many years president of the UK’s Society of Dairy Technology, worked in the 1950s and 1960s with at least one company trying to replace the inefficient cow with a machine for turning grass into milk. The cow won. While chemically very similar to the real thing, the milk the machines produced was rather too green for public taste. That was the least of its
In vitro ex cathedra From Nicholas Sharland Michael Brooks asserts that the Catholic Church ought to alter its position on in vitro fertilisation (26 July, p 18), but fails to deal with its reason for not doing so. To persuade the church of IVF’s benefits requires convincing it either that the embryo is not as morally inviolable as its teachings state; or else that the loss of embryos during IVF is not a necessary consequence. The first goes against every principle of the church. The second is unlikely to win Pope Benedict XVI over while the failure rate of implanted embryos
problems, however. It was generally agreed that its taste was similar to the fluids found in the cow’s number two stomach, though I don’t think this was ever experimentally verified. Church Stretton, Shropshire, UK
that “never again will you take a newspaper figure at face value without feeling the need, and confidence, to guesstimate your own figure” (19 July, p 47). In the same issue we are told that “the amount of space [China] heats with pumps almost quadrupled between 2004 and 2007 to 30 million square kilometres” (p 24). It would be amazing if an area larger than the 25 million square kilometres of the North American continent were heated in this fashion. Or should that be 30 million square metres, that is 30 square kilometres? Maybe you need to issue this book to everyone in your office. Wellington, New Zealand
For the record ● We said the Antiproton Decelerator facility at CERN is “due to switch on in the next year or two” (2 August, p 15). In fact it has been running since 2000; it is an experiment to study the deflection of low-energy antiprotons that will start soon. ● Reporting doubts about the diagnosis of dementia, we described the DSM-IV as a “clutch of cognitive tests” (2 August, p 18). In fact, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (IVth edition) defines hundreds of mental disorders and conditions and diagnostic criteria for them. The researchers argue that the DSM criteria for dementia may not be appropriate for certain cultures and countries. ● An editing error made John Polkinghorne say that academic exploration of the interface between science and religion is not “an endeavour to transcend the limitations inherent in the scientific strategy of bracketing out questions of meaning and value” (9 August, p 20) when in fact he wrote that it is just that.
Area of uncertainty
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected]
From Kris Ericksen Reviewing Guesstimation by Lawrence Weinstein and John A. Adam, Matthew Killeya tells us
Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
23 August 2008 | NewScientist | 21
University study that Marx cited did not find that “men who are circumcised when they are already HIV-positive are more likely to infect their partners”. There was no statistically significant difference in HIV transmission, though couples who resumed sex before wound healing had more HIV infections six months after surgery. We predict that circumcision will one day be accepted as vaccination is now. We also realise that there is still resistance. The remaining critics within the medical community employ arguments contradicted by the bulk of research. Then there is the anticircumcision movement, whose emotive, unscientific propaganda on this issue is legend. This is frustrating for international health agencies and experts trying to communicate sound, evidence-based public health messages. The World Health Organization estimates that scaling up circumcision could prevent some 3 million AIDS deaths in Africa over the next 20 years. More extensive scientific appraisals can be found at http:// go.worldbank.org/XWKGJDCZG0 and www.circinfo.net From James Badger It was flattering to see my modest study mentioned. But I am not a “circumcision advocate” as Vivien Marx suggests. I see the medical benefits of circumcision as indisputable, but I also acknowledge that it involves modifying the body for what is only a potential benefit, so I understand the cultural and philosophical reasons why some parents choose against it. Marx also failed to mention that my survey of 185 men and women was a piece of journalism for a magazine, not a peerreviewed paper. It also found that circumcised men had intercourse more frequently, and that the female partners of circumcised men were more likely to reach orgasm. These are relevant issues, www.newscientist.com
and it would be good if a more substantial study were funded. Rozelle, New South Wales, Australia
remains double that for traditional pregnancy, even if he did accept scientists’ right to be “demonstrating God’s good side”. It remains, however, a more hopeful approach than appealing to modernity and citing precedents in other faiths. While the church believes IVF is wrong, it will oppose it no matter who, which or how many disagree. Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, UK
Green milk
Transsexual terms From Oliver Franks Your report on a gene variant associated with transsexuality called female-to-male transsexuals “transsexual women” and vice versa (2 August, p 14). This perpetuates the myth that a transsexual person is a member of their assigned sex with a mental problem, rather than a member of the sex they identify with who happens to have a physical problem. Every reference to transsexual people with the wrong gender contributes to public doubt in their sanity – and thus doubt in anything they say and do. York, UK
From David Weldon Chris Collins asks about the possibility of a “milk machine” (2 August, p 23). My father, Frank Weldon, for many years president of the UK’s Society of Dairy Technology, worked in the 1950s and 1960s with at least one company trying to replace the inefficient cow with a machine for turning grass into milk. The cow won. While chemically very similar to the real thing, the milk the machines produced was rather too green for public taste. That was the least of its
In vitro ex cathedra From Nicholas Sharland Michael Brooks asserts that the Catholic Church ought to alter its position on in vitro fertilisation (26 July, p 18), but fails to deal with its reason for not doing so. To persuade the church of IVF’s benefits requires convincing it either that the embryo is not as morally inviolable as its teachings state; or else that the loss of embryos during IVF is not a necessary consequence. The first goes against every principle of the church. The second is unlikely to win Pope Benedict XVI over while the failure rate of implanted embryos
problems, however. It was generally agreed that its taste was similar to the fluids found in the cow’s number two stomach, though I don’t think this was ever experimentally verified. Church Stretton, Shropshire, UK
that “never again will you take a newspaper figure at face value without feeling the need, and confidence, to guesstimate your own figure” (19 July, p 47). In the same issue we are told that “the amount of space [China] heats with pumps almost quadrupled between 2004 and 2007 to 30 million square kilometres” (p 24). It would be amazing if an area larger than the 25 million square kilometres of the North American continent were heated in this fashion. Or should that be 30 million square metres, that is 30 square kilometres? Maybe you need to issue this book to everyone in your office. Wellington, New Zealand
For the record ● We said the Antiproton Decelerator facility at CERN is “due to switch on in the next year or two” (2 August, p 15). In fact it has been running since 2000; it is an experiment to study the deflection of low-energy antiprotons that will start soon. ● Reporting doubts about the diagnosis of dementia, we described the DSM-IV as a “clutch of cognitive tests” (2 August, p 18). In fact, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (IVth edition) defines hundreds of mental disorders and conditions and diagnostic criteria for them. The researchers argue that the DSM criteria for dementia may not be appropriate for certain cultures and countries. ● An editing error made John Polkinghorne say that academic exploration of the interface between science and religion is not “an endeavour to transcend the limitations inherent in the scientific strategy of bracketing out questions of meaning and value” (9 August, p 20) when in fact he wrote that it is just that.
Area of uncertainty
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected]
From Kris Ericksen Reviewing Guesstimation by Lawrence Weinstein and John A. Adam, Matthew Killeya tells us
Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
23 August 2008 | NewScientist | 21